Gun Guy: Supreme Court Says Police May Not Detain Armed Hoosiers to Check for Handgun License | 93.1 WIBC
"On Monday, the Indiana Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Thomas Pinner v. State, which addresses the issue of whether police officers may detain and question a person based only on a report that the individual has a gun. In agreeing with the Indiana Court of Appeals' decision handed down last August, the Supreme Court ruled that officers violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures when they detained and questioned Thomas Pinner after a taxi driver called 911 to report that Pinner had dropped a handgun when exiting a cab at a movie theater.
Under rules announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1968 case of Terry v. Ohio, a police officer may briefly detain and question a person if the officer has a "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the person is engaged in criminal activity (or in the words of SCOTUS, "that criminal activity is afoot"). If the officer also has a reasonable suspicion that the person "may be armed and dangerous," the officer may conduct a brief pat-down of the person's outer clothing to check for weapons. Together, this process is called "stop and frisk" or a "Terry stop."
Before the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling on Monday, there has been a long-standing debate in Indiana. On one side, many police officers and prosecutors have argued that a Terry stop is justified based on a report that a person is carrying a gun - or an officer's own observation that the person has a handgun - because the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is carrying a handgun illegally until the officer confirms that the person has a handgun license. On the other hand, defense attorneys and Second Amendment advocates have countered that the mere possession of a handgun, without some additional indication that such possession is illegal, does not justify the detention of the individual to investigate - much like police are not allowed to randomly stop vehicles to confirm that a motorist has a driver's license. ..."
My apologies if I've posted this in the wrong forum.
"On Monday, the Indiana Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Thomas Pinner v. State, which addresses the issue of whether police officers may detain and question a person based only on a report that the individual has a gun. In agreeing with the Indiana Court of Appeals' decision handed down last August, the Supreme Court ruled that officers violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures when they detained and questioned Thomas Pinner after a taxi driver called 911 to report that Pinner had dropped a handgun when exiting a cab at a movie theater.
Under rules announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1968 case of Terry v. Ohio, a police officer may briefly detain and question a person if the officer has a "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the person is engaged in criminal activity (or in the words of SCOTUS, "that criminal activity is afoot"). If the officer also has a reasonable suspicion that the person "may be armed and dangerous," the officer may conduct a brief pat-down of the person's outer clothing to check for weapons. Together, this process is called "stop and frisk" or a "Terry stop."
Before the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling on Monday, there has been a long-standing debate in Indiana. On one side, many police officers and prosecutors have argued that a Terry stop is justified based on a report that a person is carrying a gun - or an officer's own observation that the person has a handgun - because the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is carrying a handgun illegally until the officer confirms that the person has a handgun license. On the other hand, defense attorneys and Second Amendment advocates have countered that the mere possession of a handgun, without some additional indication that such possession is illegal, does not justify the detention of the individual to investigate - much like police are not allowed to randomly stop vehicles to confirm that a motorist has a driver's license. ..."
My apologies if I've posted this in the wrong forum.
Last edited:
